tv [untitled] September 15, 2013 6:30am-7:01am PDT
department. on that motion to uphold president haung, commissioner hurtado, lazarus, honda. the vote is 5-0. the permit is held on that basis thank you. >> the next item is item no. 8. item 8: 88 appeal no. 13-091 francis derosa & janice roudebush, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 333 el camino del mar. protesting the issuance on july 10, 2013, to michelle guest carter, alteration permit remodel and addition to existing single-family residence; project scope includes conversion of basement into habitable space, interior remodel, and horizontal addition at first and second floors; scope also includes new roof penthouse, 500sf roof deck, kitchen remodel and one new bathroomm. application no. 2013/02/19/0440s for hearing today.
>> my understanding is that the parties have reached an agreement and would like to board to adopt it tonight. can we have people from both sides approach. whoever wants to go first go ahead. >> i'm frances droes a. we have reached a settlement which we have submitted to you all and so we would ask that you approve the revised permit. the owners architect mark english is here and he can speak and address any questions that you have. >> mr. english? >> good afternoon. mark english, representing the carters. we have come to agreement. we have spent a lot of time working out adjustments
to our previously approved project to a neighborly way reduce the impact to views and light and air from our proposed improvements to the property. i think it was a very extensive outreach and i'm very pleased that we've been able to reach this agreement. >> and have you been working with the planning on this and everything is okay? >> okay. >> okay. you want us to grant the appeal and adopt these revised drawings is that correct? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> okay. mr. sanchez would you like to speak to the board on this? >> scott sanchez planning department. we appreciate the fact that they worked it out and gave us the plans well in
advance to review and make that determination. >> we should take public comment. anyone wish to speak on this item? >> there is none. >> i will move to grant the appeal. but uphold -- in condition on the plan submitted that were approved by planning. submitted with their submissions for today's hearing. >> is there a date on this plan? >> august 21st. >> okay. >> on the basis of the agreement of the parties? >> on the basis of the agreement on the parties and planning has received it and determined to be -- co-compliant . >> okay. we have a motion from the president to uphold this
permit with adoption of revised plans dated august 21, 2013, and this is on the basis of the agreement of the parties and the planning department's determination of code compliance. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, hurtado, aye, lazarus aye, honda? aye. this permit is upheld with revised plans. thank you. >> can i just say, i want to thank mr. pacheco for his wisdom and guidance in the settlement discussions and also kristin for her assistance in this as well. thanks. >> he doesn't get a raise, you know. [ laughter ] . >> i will give him a hand. okay. we will now move and thank you for that, we'll now move to item 4 a. item
4a;jurisdiction request: subject property at 1521-1531 jones street. letter from stephen williams, attorney for lindbergh low & eva chan low, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2013/06/06/8900, which was issued on june 10, 2013; the appeal period ended on june 25, 2013 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on aug. 26, 2013. permit holder: matthew wren. project: shoring plan and foundation replacement. for that, we'll now move to item 4 a. sf 41234 mr. williams, you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, steve williams representing the low family. the property is a 6-unit apartment building in residential mixed between pacific and jackson on a very steep hill. can i have the picture, please. going up towards jackson. here is the subject's property and the
low's property. most of the buildings are more than a hundred years old in this neighborhood. the project is to put a new floor on this building and to create a super unit by combining an existing unit with a new floor. they are also going to put in a new garage, there is very few garnls -- garage for this block and the top floor only. surrounding neighbors, 400 of them and appealed the project and the project was substantially reduced pulled in at 11 feet at the rear of the new addition. neighbors still uphold certain aspects of the property and we are waiting for the approval of the project when on july 18th we discovered that a portion of this project, a new permit had been pulled over the counter. i thought it
had to be a mistake. i have done this for a long time. i have never seen this before where a portion of a project is segmented out and issued to the counter without any notice to the neighbors and without any approval of the project itself and without an appeal right and an opportunity to come before this board. i did not get any responses and you saw the letters to the dbi officials. i went to mr. chiu and got a response in 10 minutes. could not get a logical explanation as to why rules are applied an how this permit was pulled. this is a huge loophole which under minds the integrity of the appeals process and the
site permit process. if you read the rules, this violates the plans. that's what i'm asking the board to enforce the plain language of the codes we put before you of exhibit 4 and 5. permit has been issued to allow work to begin on this project before all approvals have been received and an addendum has been issued for this project. we ask the board the grant the permission so this appeal can be heard when the project appeal finally shows us because it's not been approved yet. >> counselor, are you sure that the permit entitlement at building department is a site permit? >> yes, sir, it's a site permit that's pending is what we've been told and this is a
separate over the counter permit. that's why we didn't file. >> i understand your argument. but we didn't receive any information on the other permit. are you sure it's a site permit versus a building permit. >> it could be either. they come out the same way. we've been told by dbi that they are still able to permit this process even if they hold an addendum without a site permit. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. my name is matthew raymond. the holder of the permit in question. i don't have an attorney. i'm
representing myself. i do have my engineer here. despite the inflammatory and grossly statements of the appellants, i'm going to -- some background to this permit, this permit is to perform necessary improvements. most necessarily it's to replace the failing brick foundation and r e move the soft story. independent engineer's evidence of the attached building is provided. the construction to mobilize people and equipment and we will incur significant delays in cost if late jurisdiction is granted and not to mention the railing foundation will remain. this seismic upgrade is
required regardless of other potential upgrades to the building and this building falls been the mandatory ordinance. our understanding is that the board not only grant, there is no evidence of this. here are the facts. the permit was issued june 10th, the appeal closed, the appeal was made august 26th, more than 2 months after the window closed. the appellant claims not to have known about the permit hence the late appeal. there is no obligation to notify on a permit by the permit bureau. furthermore the appellant acknowledged the permit existence on july 18th. it
still appealed more than 1 month later. it failed to appeal. this appeal is actually about trying to protect the private views from the appellant's own unpermitted penthouse. for almost two years the2 -- the appellant defaced the public hearing noticed attached to our building and is threatening to appeal all permits. the private view the pell sanity trying to protect cans -- is from a boating. this penthouse stands 50 feet tall, the same height as we propose building. they have never pulled an electrical
permit, never pulled a plumbing permit and they have not completed a building permit since 1988. their billion is a fully rented 6 building unit that has not any permit 25 years. appendix 2 in my submissions, in written accuracy. >> your time is up. you said the appellant acknowledged the existence of the permit on july 18th, what do you mean by that. >> he said they learned of it july 18th, they went searching for answers. >> you understand there is no right to appeal that type of permit. that's the point. just wondering. okay. i think you answered my question. >> do you have another permit application there? >> correct. >> what type of permit
application is that? >> i'm not sure to tell you the truth. the other permit is to build a vertical addition. >> we'll find out from the building department. thank you. >> department. who wants to start, mr. duffy? yeah. great. >> good evening commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. i don't have plans with me and a lot of times when you get these packages you kind of need plans to decide what's going on. i have questions for the project sponsor. if the work that we are talking about that is under the jurisdiction request is duplicated on the site permit. if they are not on the site permit and coming and getting over a permit for a duplicate
work to get started. there is not in our code that says that you can't do that. if it's on the permit, why do you need another permit. no one has said that. i have a question about that. the notification process and certainly, i did dig up one sheet of plan with me and it looks like something is going to happen on the property line. there are code issues that would need to be addressed. as i said the permit is probably reviewed and approved, but again, the question is, is the work on the permit on the jurisdiction request shown on the main permit and why do you need to do that. so is there some reason for that. apart from that, i'm available for questions. >> so if it were on the
principal permit, if the work on the permit, the jurisdiction request on the site permit then you would say this is an improper over the counter permit. >> it's not as improper for doing this. if you have it on one permit, why are you putting it on the other. >> i think you are confusing it a little bit. a site permit does not necessarily have the details yet. the site permit then goes along with a set of what they call addendum. the first one is usually the foundation and superstructure modifications. a full permit would probable -- >> you weren't referring to it site permit then? >> i don't see it's even a site
permit. that's what's confusing. the permit for the addition alteration for the 1 unit is showing up here as a building unit. it doesn't reflect as a site permit. there is no addendum on the schedule. it's filed. it's been through quite a review. but the project sponsor needs to answer the question. is some of the work shown on that. if it's not, then that's fine. >> if it is? >> it's not against the code, but i don't know what their purpose. >> yeah, why are you doing this? >> got it. >> if you can section off a piece of it as long as it has it's own permit. >> yes, the site permit process, i don't think there is anything wrong with that in this case. it's not -- this is not an addendum to a site permit that we are talking
about. this is a separate standard permit. i definitely want to know why they are doing this. i didn't hear from the other side. >> i have a question. as the permit holder expressed, is this property, would this property be subject to soft story retrofit? >> it appears from the pictures that i saw that it could be, yes. i'm not sure. i know that's only, that program has been introduced. it could be. >> is there any way to find it. if it is a soft story retrofit it's going to have to be addressed no matter what . >> they are putting in a new garage as well. so again, it probably is part of the seismic retrofit. you don't want them starting the garage until main
permit is obtained. if that permit is attempted to get started, you want to ask questions about that. that's a concern. >> mr. duffy do you have anyantly -- knowledge of this building of the penthouse and the dbi? >> i can look it up. >> mr. sanchez? up to you. >> scott sanchez, planning department. the subject before you for the request is the shoring permit and foundation permit whiches not reviewed by the planning department. it's been alluded to the larger department. i denied a rear yard variance that they saw the
for the vertical addition. the project was subsequently revised and that project is under review. the foundation replacement if that's what's being done, we would have no issue with that in the planning department reviews and guidelines. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez, if the permits are not connected and they are doing an up grade up existing foundation. there is one slot for a garage. >> by the jurisdiction request, i have not seen plans. if there are plans for the foundation replacement and the question would be does it include you that garage which we don't have an issue with because we've already approved it. however that owner has not appealed it. i don't know what the plans
associated with this. if they include that garage addition we are 15 with that because we have approved that through the other permit. that's the outstanding question. >> mr. sanchez, in actuality, the risk is on the permit holder at this point because whatever it appears that the main building permit will probably get an appealed and there is already an adjustment there in terms of it's envelope. if there is further adjustment then a revision has to occur in foundation and seismic upgrade. okay. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, you know the disagreement on the project and
in this particular permit is really lies with the other permit. if the permit holder wants to run the risk and potentially have redundant cost and redoing it, the scope of the foundation and how the seismic system upgrade works, i have not heard anything yet that indicated that the department erered either in notice of their issuance of that permit. >> i think, can we boil it down to what we are trying to decide in granting the jurisdiction request. i think given the city issued an an over the counter request. on that basis i would
grant. >> otc permits cannot be appealed. >> on the agreement with commissioner fung i believe i will uphold the permit and deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not ---er in their decision. >> we are here for a description request that it did not cause the late filing. in this instance the sentiment here is the way i'm leaning which there was no evidence of such. i would move to deny this jurisdiction request on for those reasons.
>> okay. mr. pacheco? >> we have a motion from the president to deny this jurisdiction request. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado? no. lazarus aye, honda aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-1, the jurisdiction is denied and no permit is filed. >> we'll move on to item no. 5. appeal no. 13-085 shasha lewis dba "ola's exotic coffee & tea & oak & bbq", appellanttss vs. dept. of public works bureau of street-use & mapping, respondent 2801 leavenworth street. appealing the denial on june 27, 2013, of a mobile food facility permit sale of coffee, tea, and sweetss. application no. 13mff-0082 for hearing today.>> we'll move
on to item no. 5. sf 51234 we'll start with the appellant. >> good evening. this appeal is about miss lewis full proprietor who wants to make a living selling coffee and tea. she asked that it be revoked. the order should be reversed for three main reasons. first the fisherman's wharf argument is an attack against this full proprietor. second, miss lewis is in full compliance. finally it was write fully issued.
let's start with this fact, as soon as she is able miss lewis held this business. it was the premise that she was operating legally. then the fisherman. wharf that she made misrepresentation is in reality the misrepresentation. miss lewis stated there is no coffee shop on the shop. the water front break does not sell coffee beans and does not plan to sell in the future. it my
understanding that the water front sells baked good. miss lewis is referring to a store whose business is predominantly the sale of coffee such as starbucks or pete's coffee. fisherman. wharf brings up a franchise issue. during the hearing sasha indicated she does not have a franchise and does not know why she's being associated with one. miss lewis full proprietorship with coffee and tea shop tea & oak & bbq is registered with the county office of the recorder. >> if you want to reference something on the overhead,
please. >> overhead. she makes the assertion that the company name is the same as miss lewis. mr. her san's company was o'le an exotic coffee and tea. the judgment entered against the corporation was against mr. has an, not miss lewis. when sasha indicated she has no corporation and she is taken a back. she is taken back by this allegation because she can not see how her current permit was being associated with the corporation going by her then boyfriend. these entities are not the same and not in anyway associated with each other.
fisherman. wharf attempted he is the words. she is in compliance with the code. the public works code says that the director may suspend the permit if she's not operating. she was told to cease operations. she was informed that her bathroom verification was revoked. sasha worked to resolve this issue. she entered into an agreement with mr. lee. sasha could operate as long as she close down every hour for no less
than 10 minutes. miss reyes is the inspector working relating to this permit. sasha was nearly following the instructions to wait for mr. reyas. miss reyes was on long-term leave and sasha followed up several times. i urge the board to keep in mind the language of this public code is permissive and not mandatory. miss lewis has done everything to comply with the code. while awaiting annen expectation -- inspection by the department of